UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[EastAnglianLefty]

I'm increasingly coming round to the view that the election will be in January 2025. The argument against this is that it would be lunatic and suicidal; but in view of the behaviour of the Conservative Party in recent months I don't see how that's an argument against any longer. The argument in favour is that Sunak is a bottler.

[Blair]

I assume the legislation this week will be like every other Tory showdown; a fair number of defections with the promise that they will amend the legislation later but the various tribes fail any amendments because they require Labour votes to even get near 240 votes.

Various changes fail and then a small group of wets and a small number of very right wing MPs like Jenrick, Braverman and co vote against. The ‘joy’ of being able to vote for this legislation for Tory MPs will outweigh most of the quibbles about whether it will work- if you actually care about what works you would not have gone near this plan- as Cummings keeps (rightly) saying this policy is a Johnson hangover!

[Blair]

I for one want another set of locals purely for the hilarity of the Conservatives briefing they’ll lose 1,000 seats, lots of people will say how good they are at expectations management and then they’ll lose 1,000+- only to then get various write ups about how Labour didn’t do that well.

Re dates; the only thing they have to play is the surprise element and if I was them I’s be tempted to go with March- but equally it is very very hard to call a snap election when you’re 20% behind in the polls. I expect if they narrow and there’s a hint of economic improvement they’ll want to go earlier but you can see how the advisers will always say ‘just wait one more months and our great new policy on chess boards will cut through.’’

The funny thing is how many things in the last year were suppose to move the polls but have failed.

[IceAgeComing]

I assume the legislation this week will be like every other Tory showdown; a fair number of defections with the promise that they will amend the legislation later but the various tribes fail any amendments because they require Labour votes to even get near 240 votes.

Various changes fail and then a small group of wets and a small number of very right wing MPs like Jenrick, Braverman and co vote against. The ‘joy’ of being able to vote for this legislation for Tory MPs will outweigh most of the quibbles about whether it will work- if you actually care about what works you would not have gone near this plan- as Cummings keeps (rightly) saying this policy is a Johnson hangover!

My understanding is that Tuesday is just the second reading vote; this might pass even if people are sceptical about it. The challenge after that would be whatever they do for committee stage and third reading: that's where amendments and things like that would cause issues within the Conservatives (and Labour would back any amendments from the Tory left I imagine). Then after this it goes to the Lords who I cannot see letting this through without amendments and its not subject to the Salisbury Convention so they're not duty bound to let it pass unamended: and if they couldn't get it through the Lords the choice they'd have would be an election using Rwanda as an issue because the 1949 Parliament Act requires a year to have passed before it can be used (plus two parliamentary sessions but there's precedent from the passage of the 1949 Parliament Act that you can massage that slightly by having a short session) and that's impossible at this point. I suspect this is the governments plan: to try and use the Lords blocking this as a populist election tactic: I don't think it would work especially since Labour are the only party to have an actual commitment to House of Lords reform.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I for one want another set of locals purely for the hilarity of the Conservatives briefing they’ll lose 1,000 seats, lots of people will say how good they are at expectations management and then they’ll lose 1,000+- only to then get various write ups about how Labour didn’t do that well.

Re dates; the only thing they have to play is the surprise element and if I was them I’s be tempted to go with March- but equally it is very very hard to call a snap election when you’re 20% behind in the polls. I expect if they narrow and there’s a hint of economic improvement they’ll want to go earlier but you can see how the advisers will always say ‘just wait one more months and our great new policy on chess boards will cut through.’’

The funny thing is how many things in the last year were suppose to move the polls but have failed.

Calling it now: somebody will argue Labour has done badly because it won fewer seats in May 2024 than in May 2021, ignoring the fact that this is because loads of them aren't up until May 2025.

[Coldstream]

Only Toni Giugliano could lose again before there’s even an election called https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/11640200/snp-toni-giugliano-rival-sweeteners-withdraw-mp-selection-contest/

[CumbrianLefty]

I for one want another set of locals purely for the hilarity of the Conservatives briefing they’ll lose 1,000 seats, lots of people will say how good they are at expectations management and then they’ll lose 1,000+- only to then get various write ups about how Labour didn’t do that well.

Re dates; the only thing they have to play is the surprise element and if I was them I’s be tempted to go with March- but equally it is very very hard to call a snap election when you’re 20% behind in the polls. I expect if they narrow and there’s a hint of economic improvement they’ll want to go earlier but you can see how the advisers will always say ‘just wait one more months and our great new policy on chess boards will cut through.’’

The funny thing is how many things in the last year were suppose to move the polls but have failed.

Problem is, the only thing you can really see moving things just a bit is a sustained economic recovery (for all that it didn't save the Tories in 1997, it still quite possibly shielded them from an even bigger defeat) but that surely requires them going long until late 2024, which has other possible drawbacks.

[Joe Republic]

Is it pretty much a given that the Tories will be completely evicted from Scotland and Wales, as they were in 1997?

[Oryxslayer]

Is it pretty much a given that the Tories will be completely evicted from Scotland and Wales, as they were in 1997?

No, in fact the opposite. Cause the increasingly separate nature of political positions in the constituent parts of the UK means that a 20% polling drop can be English-only and still lead to the expected outcome.

In Wales this is mostly cause of how the Lib-Dem brand has fallen in the region. Tories still expected to lose most of the 2019 intake to Labour, especially after redistribution. Its very hard to imagine them losing the Powys seats now though, especially after redistribution adding in some Labour areas that will lead to a divided opposition.

In Scotland, this is cause the political divide is Unionist/Nationalist, not Tory/Lab/SNP. And while the Tory camp has declined at a rate comparable to the comparable to the nation when measured against their existing vote share, the SNP vote has fallen further. Additionally, there is increasing Unionist tactical voting. The going expectation right now is that while the Tory vote in the urban Labour targets will collapse hard, the vast majority of seats, they will hold all the rural borders/NE seats they do now. Depending upon how the vote spits shake out, there is even the chance at a gain or two.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is it pretty much a given that the Tories will be completely evicted from Scotland and Wales, as they were in 1997?

Wales is plausible (though not certain) due to boundary changes: the collapse of the LibDem brand and vote in Montgomery (for reasons beyond merely the usual 'Coalition' issues: Lembit Öpik was the last LibDem MP there and, well, my God...) had likely turned that in to a genuinely safe seat, except that the Boundary Commission's insistence on keeping two predominantly rural Powys constituencies despite the numbers means that the county is now paired with a postindustrial area near Wrexham, meaning that in a disaster year it might be vulnerable in an extremely messy way. They could also hold the other Powys-based constituency (which also now extends further into postindustrial territory) on a low share of the poll if they can avoid melting down there too much, so long as the Labour and LibDem votes split well enough to cancel each other out, but that might be asking too much. Majorities elsewhere are all rather ominously low given the circumstances: even the Secretary of State for Wales (David Davies, Monmouth) 'only' has one of about 20pts.

Scotland is also uncertain: all of their Scottish seats are rural constituencies where their main opponent is the SNP, who will also not being doing as well as at the last election. It is somehow at once plausible that Scotland might prove a relative bright spot for the Conservatives and also that they might get wiped out.

[Cassius]

Is it pretty much a given that the Tories will be completely evicted from Scotland and Wales, as they were in 1997?

Looks to be the case in Wales (under the old boundaries they might have been able to hang on in the Montgomery/Brecon based seats, but those have now incorporated more Labour friendly territory). In Scotland the picture is more uncertain - they’ve gone down in the polls (although the collapse hasn’t been quite as dramatic as nationally), but they may still receive tactical anti-SNP votes in the constituencies where Labour is weak so they could hold on in a handful of seats (as well as benefiting from a likely decline in SNP support).

[Torrain]

Only Toni Giugliano could lose again before there’s even an election called https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/11640200/snp-toni-giugliano-rival-sweeteners-withdraw-mp-selection-contest/

If the SNP have a Seb Payne, it’s Toni.

[JimJamUK]

Scotland is also uncertain: all of their Scottish seats are rural constituencies where their main opponent is the SNP, who will also not being doing as well as at the last election. It is somehow at once plausible that Scotland might prove a relative bright spot for the Conservatives and also that they might get wiped out.

And unless things dramatically change, we really won’t know until the results are announced.

[afleitch]

Scotland is also uncertain: all of their Scottish seats are rural constituencies where their main opponent is the SNP, who will also not being doing as well as at the last election. It is somehow at once plausible that Scotland might prove a relative bright spot for the Conservatives and also that they might get wiped out.

And unless things dramatically change, we really won’t know until the results are announced.

It depends on voter behaviour. If the Con to Lab swing in Scotland is a genuine 'I'm done' swing, as it is in rUK then we can expect limited 'keep the SNP' out tactical voting. If the SNP to Labour swing is minimal in Tory seats (because the alternative is a Tory hold and the 'swingers' are post 2015 SNP loyalists) then it could see default SNP pick ups.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

From a position of pure psephology this particular battleground is a complete mystery, and mysteries are always exciting.

[Coldstream]

Personally I doubt the Tories will see any gains in Scotland, in seats they won in 17/came close then or in 19 I think you’re more likely to see Labour overtake them. Many of these seats elected Labour MP’s in 2010, so it’s not that hard to imagine a swing back. I don’t expect Labour to win any from third in Scotland, but it’s more likely than the Tories making gains IMO.

Jim Murphy’s old seat of East Renfrewshire went Tory in 17, then back to SNP in 19, and is a plausible Labour gain from 3rd.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Meetings are currently taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish parties around government funding. On offer is around £2.5bn of extra funding, but only if Stormont is restored.

This is unlikely to go anywhere, because the DUP aren't in a mood to be bought off with cash, and even if they were the baubles on offer aren't sufficient to be enticing - it's enough to fund pay deals for the current public sector employment disputes, but only for this year as the sum being offered isn't consolidated, so next year Stormont would need to find the money out of its own budget. Another condition is that Stormont raises local taxes considerably, which none of the parties want to do do.

At the moment there is an impasse, where civil servants are just about able to keep public services ticking over but the underlying condition of the state is getting steadily and noticeably worse. A better Secretary of State would have instituted direct rule by now, but Heaton-Harris is not a good Secretary of State, the Tories still persist in seeing the DUP as ideological bedfellows rather than potential tactical allies, and they're ideologically unwilling to spend money on stabilising public services, especially in a region where doing so won't earn them any votes anyway.

[CumbrianLefty]

Meetings are currently taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish parties around government funding. On offer is around £2.5bn of extra funding, but only if Stormont is restored.

This is unlikely to go anywhere, because the DUP aren't in a mood to be bought off with cash, and even if they were the baubles on offer aren't sufficient to be enticing - it's enough to fund pay deals for the current public sector employment disputes, but only for this year as the sum being offered isn't consolidated, so next year Stormont would need to find the money out of its own budget. Another condition is that Stormont raises local taxes considerably, which none of the parties want to do do.

At the moment there is an impasse, where civil servants are just about able to keep public services ticking over but the underlying condition of the state is getting steadily and noticeably worse. A better Secretary of State would have instituted direct rule by now, but Heaton-Harris is not a good Secretary of State, the Tories still persist in seeing the DUP as ideological bedfellows rather than potential tactical allies, and they're ideologically unwilling to spend money on stabilising public services, especially in a region where doing so won't earn them any votes anyway.

And as with so much else, they don't want to do anything before a GE anyway.

[Sir Mohamed]

How is the vote of Sunak's asylum bill expected to go? If he loses, he's probably done.

[Torrain]

How is the vote of Sunak's asylum bill expected to go? If he loses, he's probably done.

All expectations are that he'll win - the rebels usually fold in the end.

There has been some odd briefing (if you believe Westminster's journalists, Sunak is both projecting confidence, and racing between a succession of one-to-one meetings with different rebels), but that's typical on a day like this.

It sounds like there'll be a number of abstentions, but not the 60 or so required to defeat the bill.

[President Johnson]

How is the vote of Sunak's asylum bill expected to go? If he loses, he's probably done.

All expectations are that he'll win - the rebels usually fold in the end.

There has been some odd briefing (if you believe Westminster's journalists, Sunak is both projecting confidence, and racing between a succession of one-to-one meetings with different rebels), but that's typical on a day like this.

It sounds like there'll be a number of abstentions, but not the 60 or so required to defeat the bill.

Bill passed 313-269, per German Tagesschau.

[Torrain]

How is the vote of Sunak's asylum bill expected to go? If he loses, he's probably done.

All expectations are that he'll win - the rebels usually fold in the end.

There has been some odd briefing (if you believe Westminster's journalists, Sunak is both projecting confidence, and racing between a succession of one-to-one meetings with different rebels), but that's typical on a day like this.

It sounds like there'll be a number of abstentions, but not the 60 or so required to defeat the bill.

Bill passed 313-269, per German Tagesschau.

Aye - 38 Tory abstentions, but only 30 once you take out paired votes. Next stages (amendment and third reading) could be messy, but that's a job for the new year now.

Despite all the rhetoric about "emergency" legislation, they took 3-4 weeks to introduce it after announcement, and now won't even send it to the Lords until late January (at the earliest).

[CumbrianLefty]

Unless the Lords accepts the bill (still unlikely despite the relatively comfortable win yesterday) then any hopes of getting people flown to Rwanda in time for a May GE are surely in vain. Which may be an indicator of a later election.

[LabourJersey]

Meetings are currently taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish parties around government funding. On offer is around £2.5bn of extra funding, but only if Stormont is restored.

This is unlikely to go anywhere, because the DUP aren't in a mood to be bought off with cash, and even if they were the baubles on offer aren't sufficient to be enticing - it's enough to fund pay deals for the current public sector employment disputes, but only for this year as the sum being offered isn't consolidated, so next year Stormont would need to find the money out of its own budget. Another condition is that Stormont raises local taxes considerably, which none of the parties want to do do.

At the moment there is an impasse, where civil servants are just about able to keep public services ticking over but the underlying condition of the state is getting steadily and noticeably worse. A better Secretary of State would have instituted direct rule by now, but Heaton-Harris is not a good Secretary of State, the Tories still persist in seeing the DUP as ideological bedfellows rather than potential tactical allies, and they're ideologically unwilling to spend money on stabilising public services, especially in a region where doing so won't earn them any votes anyway.

Are there any updates to this? Always curious to see what goes on in Stormont, but it seems with an election so soon none of the parties have an incentive to do anything at the moment.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Meetings are currently taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish parties around government funding. On offer is around £2.5bn of extra funding, but only if Stormont is restored.

This is unlikely to go anywhere, because the DUP aren't in a mood to be bought off with cash, and even if they were the baubles on offer aren't sufficient to be enticing - it's enough to fund pay deals for the current public sector employment disputes, but only for this year as the sum being offered isn't consolidated, so next year Stormont would need to find the money out of its own budget. Another condition is that Stormont raises local taxes considerably, which none of the parties want to do do.

At the moment there is an impasse, where civil servants are just about able to keep public services ticking over but the underlying condition of the state is getting steadily and noticeably worse. A better Secretary of State would have instituted direct rule by now, but Heaton-Harris is not a good Secretary of State, the Tories still persist in seeing the DUP as ideological bedfellows rather than potential tactical allies, and they're ideologically unwilling to spend money on stabilising public services, especially in a region where doing so won't earn them any votes anyway.

Are there any updates to this? Always curious to see what goes on in Stormont, but it seems with an election so soon none of the parties have an incentive to do anything at the moment.

Donaldson claims that they "approaching a decision" but won't be drawn on a timeline, and that doesn't necessarily mean the decision won't be to continue boycotting the Assembly. The DUP have convinced themselves that it didn't do them any harm in the local elections, so don't feel that they're under pressure to say yes if they don't like the deal - and avoiding making a decision means they don't have to annoy either their representatives who want to return to work or their rejectionist caucus.